Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1335; 2006(3)KarLJ128
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this writ petition is that, if an application is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, whether the petitioners are required to pay Court fee either under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or under Article 11(n) of Schedule II of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.2. 4th respondent was appointed as arbitrator and he passed an award in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the 4th respondent, which application has been treated as Arbitration suit 4/2002 by the Civil Court Bangalore. Though it is an application filed under Section 34 of he Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court treated the same as Arbitration suit, pursuant to High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR120; 2008(4)KarLJ573; 2008(1)KCCR116; 2008(2)AIRKarR25; 2008AIHC1615(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. All these civil revision petitions are admitted for examination.All these civil revision petitions under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act') either by the landlords or the tenants, invariably the landlords figuring as plaintiffs in the Small Causes suits which were for ejectment of the person occupying the premises, recovery of which was sought for by the landlords, are revision petitions which arise for examination in the context of the tenants who have suffered eviction orders, contending that such ejectment suits were not maintainable in the light of the law as laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarojamma v. K.M. Venkatesh ILR 2007 KAR 309.2. While disposing of the civil revision petition which had been placed before the division Bench and arising in the context of the very question as to the maintainability of a suit for ejectment under the provisions of the Act, particularly, having re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1249
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter has come up for admission after notice.2. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 3-2-1988 made by the Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, in Original Suit No. -- of 1988. The order came to be passed on the office objection that the suit was not properly valued.3. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents - defendants for rendering accounts in respect of the income from three bits of coffee estates left in the management of the defendants for convenience having obtained the said coffee estates to their share under a registered partition deed. The petitioners have stated that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was as given in the valuation slip enclosed alongwith the plaint. In the valuation slip, the following is stated:'The suit is for rendition of accounts of the income in the suit land payable to plaintiffs and for a decree on the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR887
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the learned single Judge who has directed the trial Court to try and decide issue No. 3 relating to the court fee as a preliminary issue.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 213/2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raichur, for the relief of partition and separate possession of their l/6th share in the suit schedule property. They also sought for a decree for refund of 1/6th share in the compensation received by the defendant. The defendant filed his written statement contesting the claim. He contended that the compensation received by him in respect of the land acquired by the State Government was his exclusive property. He specifically pleaded that the valuation of the suit and payment of fixed Court fee under Section 35(2) is wrong, and insufficient. As per the claim, each plaintiff has to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Revision Petition is filed under S. 115 of the CPC praying to set aside the orders passed on IA 3 and IA 5 to 7 on 4.12.2002 in OS 226171996 by the 31st Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.) 1. This is a defendants appeal (i.e., defendants 8, 9 and 11-16) challenging the order of rejecting their applications to recali the order dated 9.11.1999 or review the said order allowing the plain tiff/lSl respondent herein to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of money and in the alternative for declaration and possession. It transpires that property measuring 5.24 acres in Sy.No.6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahally, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was the subject matter under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA for short) which was sold m favour of the plaintiff. It appears as there was some illegality committed in granting permission contrary to the provisions of the ULCA, matter reached the Supreme Court where such a transaction was held void on the ground that such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No- 8041 of 1980 brought by Respondents 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the Learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G.P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is Respondent-I in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 198) as the Petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the severa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2000Kant319; 2000(4)KarLJ364
ORDER1. Assailing the order dated 1-10-1999 of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada on LA. No. VII filed under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC, the present civil revision petition is filed. LA. No. VII was filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 1998 under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC requesting the Trial Court to try the issue pertaining to Court fee and jurisdiction as preliminary issue. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that the trial on issue regarding Court fee and jurisdiction is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue and accordingly I.A. No. VII was dismissed.2. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contend that the order of the learned Trial Judge refusing to try the issue regarding Court fee as a preliminary issue is illegal and the same suffers from material irregularity. The further c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR973; 1992(3)KarLJ745
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the Appeal will have to be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Mandya, having regard to the value of the subject matter, which according to him, is below Rupees One lakh. Mr. Chandrashekaraiah, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this was a partition suit and the subject matter of the suit will be the entire joint family property from which the plaintiff-appellant seeks partition.2. There can be no doubt that the value of the subject matter for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction may be different from the value of the subject matter for the purpose of Court fee, having regard to the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In the case of a partition suit, the Court fee payable is fixed under Section 35(2), when the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2930; 1999(4)KarLJ695
ORDER1. Petition arises from the judgment and order dated 18-12-1997, whereby the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on Rs. 20 lakhs, the market value of the suit property and to file separate valuation slip within a month.2. The Court below after considering the matter, opined that the relief claimed in the plaint to the effect that decree for declaration be granted in favour of the plaintiff, declaring plaintiff's title to the suit property as well as for the relief of recovery of possession of the property from the defendant squarely falls under Section 24-A of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and plaintiff has to pay the Court fee, according to the market value of the property. If further found that the value of the suit property is about 20 lakhs.3. The petitioner's Counsel, Sri K.M. Chandra Prasad submitted that the value of the property is a question of fact to be determined on evidence and, so the question of payment of Court fee as well as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR4704; 2007(1)KarLJ468; ILR2006(4)Kar4704; 2007(1)KLJ468; 2007(3)KCCR1689; 2007(1)AIRKarR150
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. This revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in S.C. No. 357/2003, dated 17-12-2003, returning the plaint for presentation before the proper court on the basis that Small Causes Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as brought.2. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said order is in revision. In response to the notice in this revision the respondent has entered appearance.3. Factual matrix manifest from the records reveals;The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree to eject the defendant from the schedule premises on the plea that after marriage between him and the defendant they resided together as husband and wife in the premises No. 56, 'KRISHNA NIVAS', 5TH Cross, 12th Matn, Raghavandra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore, which property he owns. The matrimony between them was not a smooth sail and it resulted in initiation of proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!